Moolchand Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Moolchand vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 27, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1043551

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1043551
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Nov 27, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Moolchand

Advocate Shri. R.K.Chille

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....is yet to be noticed. heard on the question of admission. the petitioners have filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire impugned proceeding of section 4 of the land acquisition act, which is being conducted by the respondent nos.1 to 3 to acquire the land of the petitioners in connection of some project of respondent no.5. in oral submission after taking me through the averments of the petition and placed papers on record alongwith the notification issued by the state of m.p.under section 4 of the land acquisition act (ann. p-1).published in the dainik bhaskar newspaper on 22.9.2012, the petitioners.counsel argued that in the available scenario such notification deserves to be quashed. in addition it was also stated that the petitioners alongwith some other persons approached the authority of the respondent no.2, with their objections in the shape of the applications, but such authority has refused to receive the same and accordingly the same have not been entertained. he also pointed out that such objections have been placed alongwith the petition as annexure p-8. in such premises firstly he prayed for admission and allowing this petition and in alternate prayed for appropriate direction to the aforesaid authorities of the respondent to receive and consider the objections of the petitioners in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. learned pl did not have any objection if such petition is disposed of with appropriate direction to the authority of the respondent no.2 to entertain and decide the objections of the petitioners as prayed by the petitioners.counsel but she objected the admission of this petition. having heard, perused the papers placed on record alongwith the petition in the available scenario at present, i am not inclined either to admit this petition or to allow the same but i deem fit to dispose of the same with a direction to.....

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.18702/2012 27.11.2012 Shri R.K.Chille, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt.

Sharda Dubey, learned PL for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Subject to admission of this petition respondent No.4 is yet to be noticed.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the entire impugned proceeding of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is being conducted by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to acquire the land of the petitioners in connection of some project of respondent no.5.

In oral submission after taking me through the averments of the petition and placed papers on record alongwith the notification issued by the State of M.P.under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Ann.

P-1).published in the Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper on 22.9.2012, the petitioneRs.counsel argued that in the available scenario such notification deserves to be quashed.

In addition it was also stated that the petitioners alongwith some other persons approached the authority of the respondent No.2, with their objections in the shape of the applications, but such authority has refused to receive the same and accordingly the same have not been entertained.

He also pointed out that such objections have been placed alongwith the petition as Annexure P-8.

In such premises firstly he prayed for admission and allowing this petition and in alternate prayed for appropriate direction to the aforesaid authorities of the respondent to receive and consider the objections of the petitioners in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.

Learned PL did not have any objection if such petition is disposed of with appropriate direction to the authority of the respondent No.2 to entertain and decide the objections of the petitioners as prayed by the petitioneRs.counsel but she objected the admission of this petition.

Having heard, perused the papers placed on record alongwith the petition in the available scenario at present, I am not inclined either to admit this petition or to allow the same but I deem fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the authorities of respondent No.2.

In view of aforesaid the petitioners are extended a liberty to file their elaborate representation alongwith earlier representation and copy of this petition with Annexures within fifteen days from today in the office of authority of respondent No.2.

Pursuant to it, such authority is directed that on filing such representation/objections by the petitioners or any of them, the same be considered and decided in speaking manner under intimation to the petitioners within further 60 days or the period prescribed in this regard under the law.

The petition is disposed of as indicated above.

C c as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Moolchand vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Land Acquisition